The Internal Revenue Service has for years been protected bystatutory courts both of the United States and the severalStates, with the latter operating in the framework of adopteduniform laws which ascribe a federal character to the severalStates. Both operate under the presumption of Congress' ArticleIV jurisdiction within the geographical United States (theDistrict of Columbia, Puerto Rico, etc.), both accommodateprivate international law under exclusively United Statestreaties on private international law, and both operate in theframework of admiralty rules to impose Civil Law (see bothmajority & dissenting opinions variously, Bennis v. Michigan,U.S. Supreme Court No. 94-8729, March 4, 1996), which isrepugnant to both state and national constitutions (see authorityof Department of Justice as representative of the "CentralAuthority" established by U.S. treaties on private internationallaw at 28 CFR Sec. 0.49; also, "conflict of laws" as asubcategory to "statutes" in American Jurisprudence). However,this house of cards will shortly fall as Cooperative Federalism,known as Corporatism well into the 1930s, has been thoroughlydocumented and is rapidly being exposed via state and UnitedStates appellate courts and in public forum. -------------------------------------------------------------"Civil Law which is repugnant to both state and national constitutions"???

FYI private international law IS Conflict of Laws, though foreign law is an issue of fact not Law. The below may interest, among others Mr. Meador.

“[...] American law is closer to the [Roman] civil law than the Englishcommon law.” Roscoe Pound, The Formative Era of American Law (Little,Brown and Company. 1938), p. 138. SEE BELOW POST: Civil law vs. common-law...I knew that!!!ROFL

'The first paragraph of what often is called the Federal Article reads, “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” This clause involves a constitutional aspect of what Judge Cardozo called “one of the most baffling subjects of legal science, the so-called Conflict of Law.” Its interpretation is less involved than that of most constitutional provisions with social and political considerations. It is concerned with the techniques of the law. It serves to coordinate the administration of justice among the several independent legal systems which exist in our Federation.' Robert H. Jackson, Full Faith and Credit——The Lawyer’s Clause of the Constitution, Vol. XLV Columbia Law Review, 1, 2 (Jan. 1945).

International law in its widest and most comprehensive sense includes not only questions of right between nations, governed by what has been appropriately called the law of nations, but also questions arising under what is usually called private international law, or conflict of laws, and concerning the rights of persons within the territory and dominion of one nation, by reason of acts, private or public, done within the dominion of another nation. Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 16 S.Ct. 139, 40 U.S. (L.ed.) 95. This was the force accorded to the term “jus gentium” by the Roman jurisconsults; but to-day private international law is deemed quite separate and distinct from the law of nations. United States v. Dickelman, 92 U.S. 520, 23 U.S. (L.ed.) 742. 15 R.C.L., International Law, p. 95 (1917).

"From the point of view of Conflict of Laws the nature of the proceedings and their effect are matters for the local law of the state where they take place. Whether the court in which the proceedings take place has the power to affect title to the res dependes upon its jurisdiction over the thing. If there was judicial jurisdiction the effect of the proceedings upon title according to local law is recognized elsewhere. In this country [U.S.] the due process and full faith and credit clauses require jurisdiction as conceived by the Supreme Court, and then, if such jurisdiction exists, there must be recognition by courts of other states of the effectiveness of the proceedings, if, of course, they take place in a state of the United States." George Wilfred Stumberg, Principles of Conflict of Laws, 2nd ed. (University of Texas, The Foundation Press, Inc., 1951).

"While in the sense of public international law the several states of the Union are neither foreign to the United States nor to each other, they are foreign in the field of private international law." Robinson v. Norato, 162 A.L.R. 362, 71 R.I. 256, 43 A.2d 467 (1945).

Conflict of Laws. State courts should not refrain from assuming jurisdiction of action to enforce penalties under federal statutes, as attempted delegation [alienation] of federal judicial power, since generally that is the practice in common-law jurisdictions under doctrines of conflict of laws, and state of forum ought generally to take jurisdiction under federal statutes because they must not in exercise of state jurisdiction discriminate against federal rights. Bowles v. Barde Steel, Co., 164 P.2d 692, 693 (Oregon S.Ct. 1945).

In conflict of laws “state” means any geographical portion of the earth’s surface having an independent system of law. All portions of a federal system are states, though they are not fully sovereign and are not States of the Union. Robert Allen Sedler, The Erie Outcome Test as a Guide to Substance and Procedure in the Conflicts of Law, 37 New York University Law Review, 813 n. 1 (1962).

‘[T]he term “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” . . . must be construed in the sense in which the term is used in international law as accepted in the United States as well as Europe. * * * The provision of the 14th Amendment alluded to [“subject to the jurisdiction thereof”] . . . is affirmative and declaratory, intented to allay doubts and to settle controversies which had arisen with respect to citizenship.’ Francis Wharton, A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws or Private International Law, 3rd ed.(The Lawyer’s Co-operative Publishers Co., 1905), vol. 1, pp. 45-47.

International law in its widest and most comprehensive sense includes not only questions of right between nations, governed by what has been appropriately called the law of nations, but also questions arising under what is usually called private international law, or conflict of laws, and concerning the rights of persons within the territory and dominion of one nation, by reason of acts, private or public, done within the dominion of another nation. Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 16 S.Ct. 139, 40 U.S. (L.ed.) 95. This was the force accorded to the term “jus gentium” by the Roman jurisconsults; but to-day private international law is deemed quite separate and distinct from the law of nations. United States v. Dickelman, 92 U.S. 520, 23 U.S. (L.ed.) 742. 15 R.C.L., International Law, p. 95 (1917).

The Constitution of the United States has been construed as containing limitations upon state power in the field of Conflict of Laws. A number of decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States may be construed as indicating that in its opinion, the federal Constitution imposes limitations upon state courts, which require them to reach results in conformity with a hypothesis that Conflict of Laws deals with recognition and enforcement of legal relations created in a state having jurisdiction because of the occurrence there of proper facts. Three constitutional provisions have an inportant bearing upon the limits to which state courts can go in dealing with problems of Conflict of Laws. These are the interstate commerce clause, the due process provision of the Fourteenth Amendment and the full faith and credit clause. George Wilfred Stumberg, Principles of Conflict of Laws, 2nd ed. (University of Texas, The Foundation Press, Inc., 1951), p. 58.

Conflict of Laws——12 Corpus Juris, p. 431 (1917). § 1. The term “conflict of laws” is a phrase employed to distinguish that branch of jurisprudence which deals with questions relating to the rights of persons within the territory and domain of one political sovereignty by reason of acts, public or private, done within the domain of another sovereignty. See Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 162, 16 S.Ct. 139, 40 L.Ed. 95. “Private International Law” is a title which has been used by some text-writers as covering the same subject matter and as preferable to the term “Conflict of Laws.”2 It is, however, open to criticisim in that, while, “International Law,” as applied to public rights and duties, has a definite and recognized sanction in the law of nations, the jus gentium, such law has not yet been held, in courts following the Anglo-Saxon system of jurisprudence, to impose limitations on independent sovereignties in dealing with strictly private rights within their own territorial jurisdiction. The principles controlling the determination of such rights are to be found, not in the law of nations, but in the treaties, statutes, and judicial decisions forming the law of the jurisdiction in which the question arises. 2 [a] Discussion of term.——The term “Private International Law”, is adopted by Prof. Westlake, and Prof. Woolsey says: “It is called private, because it is concerned with the private rights and relations of individuals. It differs from territorial or municipal law, in that it may allow the law of another territory to be the rule of judgment in preference to the law of that where the case is tried. It is international, because, with a certain degree of harmony, Christian states have come to adopt the same principles in judicial decisions, where different municipal laws clash. It is called law, just as public international law is called law; not as imposed by a superior, but as a rule of action freely adopted by the sovereign power of a country, either in consideration of its being so adopted by other countries, or of its essential justice. And this adoption may have taken place through express law giving direction to courts, or through power lodged in courts themselves.” Woolsey International Law (5th ed) § 72. 12 Corpus Juris, Conflict of Laws, p. 431 (1917).